Comments related to the repealing of the Act of 16 November 2000 on Warehouses, and on Amending the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and Other Acts [Journal of Laws No. 114, item 1191, as amended; (hereinafter: the “Act”)]

The article concerns, in a broad sense of the word, the nature and desirable characteristics of economic legislation. It comprises three parts. In the first one the author addresses the subject of the notion of economic law from an economic, legal and social point of view as understood throughout the 20th century. The author specifically discusses the changes that the term “economic law” underwent in Polish legal science. He also tackles the issue of rationality of legislative solutions, the inflation of law (overregulation) and the effectiveness of economic law. The second part discusses the Act on Limiting Administrative Barriers for Citizens and Entrepreneurs of 25 March 2011 in connection with the repealing of the Act on its basis. The author takes a critical stance on the repealing of the Act. In particular, he points out certain legislative shortcomings, as well as the fact that the institution of warehouses and warehouse certificates has been eliminated from the Polish legal system. In conclusion, the author states that a rational (reasonable) legislator should be characterized by “moderate conservatism”, while the enactment of economic law cannot serve as an antidote to economic failings of present-day times.

Description of the subject of the public procurement contract by reference to specific trademarks, patents or origin vs. equivalent offer issues

Equivalent solutions must be supported by a specification of the public procurement requirements in order to be acceptable. An awarding entity must describe the products or services to be procured in an unequivocal and exhaustive manner, and a failure to do so will violate the principle of fair competition in the procurement procedure. The awarding entity may define the requirements to be covered by the product or service using brand names, patents or origin. However, it necessitates functional, performance and technical aspects of the equivalent product/service to be specified to avoid bias and exclusion of other solutions (than indicated), and to ensure a comparison of offers by the procurer. By referring to solutions of a specific manufacturer/supplier without defining the equivalent characteristics in the contract description, the awarding entity not only restricts fair competition but also eliminates competitors, and thus contravenes art. 7 of the Public Procurement Law, which provides for fair competition and equal treatment.

Receivership of a bank joint-stock company as the subject of criminal responsibility

Pursuant to Article 145(1) of the Banking Law Act, the Commission for Banking Supervision may place a bank joint-stock company under receivership for the duration of carrying out the recovery proceedings. The act prescribes that establishing receivership does not affect the way the bank, as a legal person, operates and is organized, except for the changes under the law. However, the following question arises: does the fact that establishing receivership does not affect the internal operation of the company as a legal person also ensure that in external relations the company guarantees the proper management and performance of its obligations? Even the more significant issue concerns whether it is possible to bring a criminal action against the members of receivership. If this is not possible, the suspension of the management board and other bodies results in a situation where there are no entities in the recovery proceedings against whom it could be possible, in theory, to bring a criminal action. It should be noted that administrative receivers do not act as state officials so they are not to be accountable for their actions or omissions under Art. 231 of the Polish Criminal Code. Due to the same reason the civil liability of the Treasury is also excluded so the members of receivership are to be personally liable for damage. Therefore, the aim of the article is to indicate a possible legal basis making it possible to bring a criminal action against the members of receivership.

The problem of place of regulation of tax execution was presented. Strong relations between tax ordinace regulation and tax execution regulation show that this problem exists. Evolution and current regulation were presented. Author distinguishes three ideas of placement of regulation of tax execution. In the first proposal, the regulation of tax execution are place in one act together with administrative enforcement of non-tax public obligation. In second conception, regulation of tax execution are place in act which states solely of tax execution. In third conception regulation of tax execution are place solely in tax ordinace. The writer of this article analyses positive and negative arguments of particular ideas. In conclusions author states that regulation of tax execution can be placed in tax ordinace. Even if this regulation is not placed in tax ordinace, legislator should take into account that this regulation of tax ordinace and act state of tax execution is strong related.